duchaked:[Franklin was very much a Connor-esque paperboy being led along by everyone, but it was Lamar who annoyed the crap about me with his "homies for life" deal until the end when he redeemed himself haha.

Dear God. I mean, yeah. God forbid anyone want to better themselves and not spend their lives being ripped off by drug fiends and used by employers.

That seemed to be the entire theme of everyone surrounding Franklin. While I actually kind of liked Franklin, he was the hardest of the characters to cope with story-wise. For me, anywho.

So basically, your taste has completely changed in the two years since? Probably not. Not according to the games you've played on GFWL and that's as far as I'm willing to look

The main reason that I can't enjoy GTA V is mainly how the world is so large, yet feels like there's not much to do; sure, there's strip clubs, yes, there's golf and tennis, but I never found out whether they contributed to the gameplay. I understand that they are just distractions that are meant to make the player feel more immersed in the game, but I would have preferred it if those distractions actually helped me in the game as opposed to feeling like a time waster. (I did try playing Tennis for a bit because I thought it would raise my Stamina but I don't think it did) Look at Just Cause 2 for example, it has a huge world filled with bases you can take over, and in doing so, you earn more cash and upgrades, in Saint's Row IV, you collect data clusters to improve your super powers, in Red Dead Redemption and Far Cry 3, you can do animal and bounty hunts to get money and improve your character.

Sports increase your strength and allow you to take more damage in gameplay. So yes, by your RDR definition, they do impact gameplay. I'm sorry you didn't notice, but it's real.

Most things in the game afford you cash or stat awards. Not all of them, and cash is a bit screwed up. But if your definition is on things to do that don't impact the gameplay, I think the only activity with no such impact is the strip club. And I think that's mostly so horny fifteen year olds can see tits. This is a Rockstar title we're talking about.

I think the game does too good of a job for punishing you, especially for a game where most of the fun is generated by you doing crimes.

I actually find myself longing for Saints Row 2/3 when it comes to the crimes, so that much I can agree with. Still, it's not hard to evade the cops to 4 stars. It just becomes tedious. Especially when they seem to spawn them just to fuck with you. It's really easy to get a 1 star and it takes too long to get rid of it. I don't think that breaks the game, though.

Sgt. Sykes:Of course, I'm the kind of person who plays helicopter simulators so I'm weird, but what you say is exactly my point - fun is subjective ergo you can say SR is faster, but I do object to labeling it fun just by default.

but we're labeling it more fun because we find it more fun. And that's the thing. This seems to be understood by everyone else. You may enjoy the "more realistic" controls of GTA IV, but others didn't. also, if I had a car that handled like that, I'd not only return the vehicle, but do my best to drive the company out of business.

We really shouldn't have to stop and say "in my opinion" after every line of text, every contextual statement, every non-empirical piece of information offered.

But at the same time, GTA has evolved into a chore simulator, and I have trouble seeing why that's considered fun. Maybe you find Facebook games fun, but it seems to me most people play them as time wasters, not as legitimate hobbies. And if that's what makes you happy, fine. But be realistic.

I mean, one of the missions in GTAV has you mopping the floor. and you have to clean out your mop head. Now, maybe you're the type of gamer who enjoys floor-mopping simulators. Maybe Environmental Services Hero is one of your big pre-orders every year. But it shouldn't really be that hard to figure out why emulating chores in video games isn't popular.

Ed130:So you find it average with poor writing, pointless RPG elements, by the nose story missions and no overarching plot.

Not GOTY material then?

It's funny, my opinion is best described as being the polar opposite, crashing through the review like the Polar Express through a snowman.

From a technical perspective, the game is awesome, mind-blowingly so. Yes, it's pretty much still the same GTA ever since it turned 3D - just better, and chock full of references and wink wink nudge nudge moments.

As a piece of interactive art, it's outstanding. There is nothing that even remotely compares to it. People keep mentioning Saint's Row, a series I can enjoy since number 3, but Saint's Row is basically the Hot Shots and Loaded Weapon funny hah-hah knock-off - easy to pick up, fun for a bit, less depth than the piddle of wee in the average hater's pants.

I'm old, I read books and I collect all sorts of shit to make my temporary stay on earth a bit more fun. I like the writing of GTA 5, even if it is mostly served on a self-service basis.

And GTA Online is getting better and more addictive every day.

I play Gran Turismo religiously and I drive a wide range of cars in real life. The handling of vehicles in GTA V is fine. If you know what you like, and if you have a basic grip on physics, driving in GTA V is plenty fun. The flying is also very much OK.

Definitely GOTY material, definitely the one WOW killer in the making a lot of non fantasy unicorn heads have been waiting for.

And just about the same amount of unsavoury subjects as in every online multiplayer community.

Still, GTA V story mode is a must, GTA Online could easily be the next biggest thing in online gaming.

No time to rant now, gotta go steal cars, shoot fellow players from fighter planes and check out what new hairdos I just unlocked.

Branindain:GTA is the perfect example of why this industry needs its Yahtzees desperately. GTA IV comes out and gets perfect scores and rampant acclaim across the board, and its Metacritic score is higher than should be possible when you consider the broad range of opinion it allegedly represents. Yet nowadays, with the hype long gone, most times I hear GTA IV mentioned, its flaws are being criticised. How is it no-one was professional enough to notice these flaws on a first playthrough? It's pathetic. And now, rather than learn anything, the cycle will begin again. Most frustrating of all, to my mind, are the reviewers who gave GTA IV a 10, and now, in giving GTA V another 10, will happily point out all the areas where it has improved weak points, or fixed problems that existed in the last version WHICH THEY GAVE A PERFECT SCORE.

I enjoyed GTA4 and have enjoyed 5 even moreso, 4 I would say was an 8 and GTAV is probably a 9 to me. It's a subjective view though, I think it's worth that you think its worth less, neither are right or wrong. I think cod is worth 1, but others love it, doesnt make either of us right or wrong.

"Giving us 3 protagonists hoping on the off chance that we would like one of the them".

Of all the people to have missed the point... why did it have to be yahtzee...Your not supposed to like the protagonists. Your not actually supposed to like anyone in GTA V.

Poorly written and inconsistent characters? That seemed like a rather big hand wave.

All he seems to do is take the points he didn't like about the story (like in the Last of Us) and focus on those points... forgetting to mention all the stuff he did like about it.Not to mention he forgot to talk about the gameplay, whether the mechanics work, whether it feels solid. All he gave us was "bad airplane controls" but Rockstar did that on purpose. They want flying to be difficult to learn and use.He also forgot to talk about the controversy surrounding the game and what he thinks about it...

This review just seems really lazy, I was willing to let it slide in The Last of Us because he actually did give us a gameplay round down in that one (stealth mechanics, throwable weapons, AI ect).

Branindain:GTA is the perfect example of why this industry needs its Yahtzees desperately. GTA IV comes out and gets perfect scores and rampant acclaim across the board, and its Metacritic score is higher than should be possible when you consider the broad range of opinion it allegedly represents. Yet nowadays, with the hype long gone, most times I hear GTA IV mentioned, its flaws are being criticised. How is it no-one was professional enough to notice these flaws on a first playthrough? It's pathetic. And now, rather than learn anything, the cycle will begin again. Most frustrating of all, to my mind, are the reviewers who gave GTA IV a 10, and now, in giving GTA V another 10, will happily point out all the areas where it has improved weak points, or fixed problems that existed in the last version WHICH THEY GAVE A PERFECT SCORE.

Because the flaws do not detract from the overall experience. Remember a perfect score does not mean a "perfect game". Theres no such thing as a perfect game.

Look at Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, its gotten 5-6 years of unofficial patches, long after Troika died, and it's still is not perfect.

10/10 means its a masterpiece, magnus opus, ie A great work and any flaws are negligible to the overall experience or point of the game.

With that said, GTA IV did still have a slightly inflated score. Hype I suppose, if big enough, can affect a review if the game is a overall good one. Makes the good points seem better than they are and nitpicks get overlooked. Though not always. It seemed like a solid 8/10 to me.Anyway I think GTA V is probably a 9/10 if I had to make a judgement solely off the gameplay, the story to me gets a 10/10. It was like Kane and Lynch in a open world game.Sure I didn't like the characters but that didn't stop me from being invested in what happens to the people that get in their way who don't deserve it (or the innocent people whom are related to them that get caught up in the situation). The morals & themes explored, and how they relate to our society... its pretty big points to me.

TheUnbeholden:This review just seems really lazy, I was willing to let it slide in The Last of Us because he actually did give us a gameplay round down in that one (stealth mechanics, throwable weapons, AI ect).

Its not a review, its a critique. He's picking out the things he really did like and the things that he didn't like and telling them to us.

As for gameplay? I don't have GTA 5, but he told me exactly what I needed to know in that department. Its identical to all the other GTAs, the flying is still crap and 4's "heavy" cars have been fixed. Tada!

Zachary Amaranth:but we're labeling it more fun because we find it more fun. And that's the thing. This seems to be understood by everyone else.

My problem is that in most games, people tend to describe what they enjoyed about a game. For example, ask someone what they thought about Skyrim and if they have more than 5 seconds, they'll say something about the large open world, dragons or lots of missions. Ask what they thought about Mass Effect or Gears of War or COD and again they'll tell you at least some examples of what was good.

A description of SR though seems too often to just default to 'fun' even with reviewers, which I find unfair to other games. Especially if SR comes up as a comparison to another game.

I don't know about a floor-mopping mission, but even that can be more fun than throwing excrements at houses if the story context or mechanics are better.

Then I will loosely repeat what Yahtzee said about The Conduit, why is the crap option the default one?

The middle ground is the default, just like everything else. Experienced gamers will find the hard lock makes fights trivial whereas newer gamers could find free aim a bit challenging. Decisions like this aren't made on a whim and calling it "the crap one" because it's not your favourite implies a narrow mindedness that permeates this entire thread.

"My opinion is X, ergo X is correct and everyone who thinks/likes Y is wrong."

Then I will loosely repeat what Yahtzee said about The Conduit, why is the crap option the default one?

The middle ground is the default, just like everything else. Experienced gamers will find the hard lock makes fights trivial whereas newer gamers could find free aim a bit challenging. Decisions like this aren't made on a whim and calling it "the crap one" because it's not your favourite implies a narrow mindedness that permeates this entire thread.

"My opinion is X, ergo X is correct and everyone who thinks/likes Y is wrong."

Erm no, that's not my opinion, at all. I said originally that it can't decide whether it's auto-lock on or not. I didn't change any options, half the time it will just auto-lock on an enemy in sight, half the time it made me aim for the enemy myself. As I didn't know of the existence of the button to go all one way or the other, the game itself by default was doing this. A shooting system randomly changing between auto-lock on and free aiming in the same fight as the same character is not good, unless it's intended to challenge players.

Erm no, that's not my opinion, at all. I said originally that it can't decide whether it's auto-lock on or not. I didn't change any options, half the time it will just auto-lock on an enemy in sight, half the time it made me aim for the enemy myself. As I didn't know of the existence of the button to go all one way or the other, the game itself by default was doing this. A shooting system randomly changing between auto-lock on and free aiming in the same fight as the same character is not good, unless it's intended to challenge players.

You're exaggerating a problem that has an easy fix. The starting option is basically Aim Assist from CoD with a bit of enemy trailing. If you drag away from the suggested target or hold the trigger down for any notable period of time you end up in free aim, it's a pretty simple/consistent aim mode. I don't really like losing control of my aiming reticule at all so quickly swapped to free aim but it's hardly the schizophrenic system that you suggest.

You're exaggerating a problem that has an easy fix. The starting option is basically Aim Assist from CoD with a bit of enemy trailing. If you drag away from the suggested target or hold the trigger down for any notable period of time you end up in free aim, it's a pretty simple/consistent aim mode. I don't really like losing control of my aiming reticule at all so quickly swapped to free aim but it's hardly the schizophrenic system that you suggest.

I'm sure it has an easy fix (I've not been on since the day Online launched), but I just don't like it's default as you can probably tell. The comparison to CoD is true (sensitivity goes down when you aim at an enemy) but GTA V's is a bit more extreme than it. However I'm not exaggerating. From memory when I was on the mill mission in the big shootout what I explained actually did happen on several occasions. It also happened during the Grove Street section, among other parts. Each time I was aiming from cover so it's not as if I was running and was trying to aim on the go. Perhaps it's really schizophrenic from cover and not on the move.

I'll probably switch the gun control thing when I go back onto it. That'll be a week of so from now, though.

Having more than 2-3 people writing a single character's dialogue is a terrible idea. Even then, it's really one writing and two editing.

So comics are a horrible idea?You know how many people have written dialog for spiderman? Still manages to be a consistent character.

I'm not sure if any long-running comic book character can claim to be consistent.

That's a joke, right?Superman, the eternal boy scout. Any time he strays from that path is either for the sake of character development or because of a temporary issue (like mind control or magic) so your argument doesn't really make sense.

If anything, they are too consistent and don't take enough opportunities to develop the characters.

Still, I do love when people that never read comic books try to complain about any aspect of comic books. Either you haven't read many comics or you can't tell the difference between character development and an inconsistent character.

TheUnbeholden:This review just seems really lazy, I was willing to let it slide in The Last of Us because he actually did give us a gameplay round down in that one (stealth mechanics, throwable weapons, AI ect).

Its not a review, its a critique. He's picking out the things he really did like and the things that he didn't like and telling them to us.

As for gameplay? I don't have GTA 5, but he told me exactly what I needed to know in that department. Its identical to all the other GTAs, the flying is still crap and 4's "heavy" cars have been fixed. Tada!

The problem is it's a lazy critique.

He says something about michael thinking he can solve the problem of being rich and depressed by robbing a store and getting more rich. That's not at all what happens in the game, they go on their first heist for a very specific reason that I would rather not spoil for those that haven't played the game. It wasn't just "let's make more money!" in fact I believe there is only one heist in the entire game (with the exception of Trevor's insanity fueled plan) that was done specifically to make them money, even then there is a different reason that Mike suggests it in the first place.

There are plenty of things to nitpick with this game, that's why it comes off as "lazy" when they make up reasons to dislike the game or it's story.

You admit to not playing the game but accuse it of being like every other GTA game. First of all, it's not. If you don't like it, fine, but you never gave it a chance before just assuming that they didn't change anything. Your blind fanboy defense of Yahtzee kind of shows it's face in your comment.

One thing I don't understand though, why is Saints Row considered 'fun' and the later GTA aren't? Because you can run around with a dildo and other wacky stuff? That's wacky. Not necessarily fun. I didn't play GTAV of course (having only a PC and stuff), but I definitely had tons more fun with GTA IV then SR2+3 combined and if GTA had the same stupid wacky humor everywhere, I'd like it less.

GTAV is best described as GTAIV engine with San Andreas gameplay. I love the game, just as I love Saints Row IV, I play the game I'm in the mood for at the time. But like every game it's not perfect, there are some things people don't like. I haven't had any issues so for me it's perfect, but I'm not going to claim that those that disagree are wrong, it's personal preference.

Yes, no game is perfect, so why not talk about flaws the game actually has instead of making things up for the sake of this video?

It's not just "SA on the GTA 4 engine" and I have to wonder if you even played the game with a comment like that. It's the same engine in a sense but it's been changed in some pretty major ways. On top of that, the gameplay is nothing like SA and I don't even know how you came to that conclusion. Because the city is the same? Even that wouldn't be completely accurate, it's not really the same Los Santos portrayed in SA.

Sidney Buit:As for gameplay? I don't have GTA 5, but he told me exactly what I needed to know in that department. Its identical to all the other GTAs, the flying is still crap and 4's "heavy" cars have been fixed. Tada!

You admit to not playing the game but accuse it of being like every other GTA game. First of all, it's not. If you don't like it, fine, but you never gave it a chance before just assuming that they didn't change anything. Your blind fanboy defense of Yahtzee kind of shows it's face in your comment.

I hope to high heavens that GTA5 is the same as the other GTAs (with the expected graphical improvements), because that's what pretty much every other reviewer has been telling me, and it's what I want when I finally manage to scrounge up the $60 I'll need to buy the thing. Can you tell me, then, what is different? Is it something that will matter to me, or is it some vague undefined quality that everyone else has missed?

I'm not sure if any long-running comic book character can claim to be consistent.

That's a joke, right?Superman, the eternal boy scout. Any time he strays from that path is either for the sake of character development or because of a temporary issue (like mind control or magic) so your argument doesn't really make sense.

If anything, they are too consistent and don't take enough opportunities to develop the characters.

Still, I do love when people that never read comic books try to complain about any aspect of comic books. Either you haven't read many comics or you can't tell the difference between character development and an inconsistent character.

So every mythos of Spiderman has had him make a deal with the Devil or poison Mary Jane with his radioactive sperm? I think it's safe to say that differing comic writers have taken some liberties.

It's not just "SA on the GTA 4 engine" and I have to wonder if you even played the game with a comment like that. It's the same engine in a sense but it's been changed in some pretty major ways. On top of that, the gameplay is nothing like SA and I don't even know how you came to that conclusion. Because the city is the same? Even that wouldn't be completely accurate, it's not really the same Los Santos portrayed in SA.

Quite quick to tell others what they have and haven't done, I went to the midnight launch in Sydney and yes I do have it on PS3 (Special Edition). To me it feels like San Andreas since it added the whole stamina, more side missions and customisation. Has planes etc and just in general more stuff to do/see. Unlike GTA4 where out of missions there wasn't much to do. Plus as you said it looks and feels like SA. Yes it's edited but it's still the GTA4 engine, which is good. They put less time into building the engine and more time into making an enjoyable game :-)

What's this floor mopping mission people keep bringing up? I've beaten the game and found nothing of the sort. Are people just looking for things to complain about and failing miserably? I mean, the LifeInvader mission and it's pop-up minigame were a definite low point, but the rest of it was exceptional.

As much as I love Yahtzee, I don't think this GTA V review is going to be in his "greatest hits" collection - his main criticism is that the game just has too much stuff in it (which I think is perfectly fine for an open world game, compared to the linear duck-and-shoot galleries that only last FOUR HOURS!!!), and he doesn't acknowledge the improvements the game has made (Better driving! Better shooting! Better mission variety!), without really blasting the weak points.

He only says that the characters aren't interesting without getting into actual examples of their shortcomings in the game, like the inherent hypocrisy of Franklin wanting to leave his criminal life in the hood... to have a criminal life with high-risk heists, solely for a higher reward. Or that Michael's family problems are allegedly solved before the climax of the game, but the player can turn right around and have him get it on with prostitutes he had just turned down during the player's transition to him from the other characters.

And speaking of transitions, I find it criminal that Yahtzee failed to mention how one can allegedly switch between whichever of the three characters in the game they want, but story progression can only happen if a certain character is selected, when it presented an opportunity ripe for different mission paths exclusive to each character (like how Saints Row did it for the three gangs in the first two games). And I also find it criminal how your only criticism of the Heist system is that it "forces linear missions into sandbox games", when the criticism is that, for how much it was hyped up, they have little to do with the actual game: there are only six Heist missions in the whole game, with two stuck with one potential plan to execute (and one technically being so similar in plan it might as well be one plan anyways), and two not allowing you to hire crew members.

Speaking of crew members, I wish there a LOT more opportunities to interact with them outside of the big heists - hang out with them to get a feel for their personalities, take them on training courses to bump up their stats outside of the big heists, hell, possibly call them for backup on some non-heist missions, especially towards the climax of the story.

But in defense of the game, while GTA V probably gets a little tedious, I don't think it's AS tedious as some people are making it out to be: that oft-used example people are making of one of the missions being "mop the floor" is ignoring two facts: 1) that's one of the optional approaches to a heist, so it's technically avoidable, and 2) that's cover for your character so they could PLANT FIREBOMBS IN AN FIB BUILDING, THEN BLOW UP THE FIREBOMBS, THEN HAVE THE CREW CHARGE IN AS FIREFIGHTERS TO GRAB SOMETHING IN THE CHAOS, THEN HAVE A SHOOTOUT IN THE FIRE, THEN RAPPEL DOWN AN ELEVATOR SHAFT DODGING FALLING CONCRETE, ALL OF IT RIPPED OUT OF A DISASTER MOVIE SCENE!!!

Yes that last part was unspoilered partly because it needed to put the whole "mop the floor" part into perspective, and partly because "IT'S FUCKING AWESOME, AND HAD TO BE SAID!!!"

Edit: I also think it's a bad sign for Yahtzee's review when a non-sequiter joke of a soldier getting his leg blown off in WWII, and then calmly writing to his mother before screaming in pain, is the only "joke" that really made me laugh out loud, compared to the relative softballs he tossed at GTA V.

He said it REMINDED him of the gambler's fallacy, not that it was- that putting out three protagonists who were fairly similar hoping that the player would like one was like the gambler's fallacy. A statement of the literal application of it I read once went something like this: A professor carried a bomb onto every plane he went on. Someone noticed one day and asked him why. "Well, it's long odds that one bomb is on a plane. To have two bombs on a plane would be nearly impossible!". So while it's not an exact application, it's similar enough that there's not really a separate word for this concept except perhaps 'throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks'.

@People complaining about so-called 'fanboys'.People aren't pissed when reviewers (if the word applies to ZP) complain about a game they like, they complain when the reviewer seems to only do so unfairly, or purposefully for attention or just to attack people who like the game.

Yahtzee is really devolving into that guy who just hates on popular games just to be different and try to rile fanboysUp.

I don't understand how he can bash games like The Last of Us or GTAV but praise mediocre games like Bioshock Infinite or even Walking Dead: Survical Instinct, just because they're not as popular or mainstream. Infinite had so many things Yahtzee loves to complain about. Regenerating shields, 2 weapon limit, useless RPG elements, scripted set pieces, ripping off Halo. Yet he loved it unconditionally but goes on to hate on superior games for nonsensical and petty reasons. The protagonists are supposed to be evil jerks. Just like Joel. Why can't Yahtzee comprehend this? He loved Captain Walker in Spec Ops: The Line for making you play as the bad guy without you knowing but then TLOU does it better and more subtly and he doesn't even mention it?

Also, this is GTA. Why are you taking the story and characters so seriously? You complained in your Deadpool review there aren't enough AAA comedy games out right now. Well, here's one. The dialogue is supposed to be over the top and wacky. Or should they be more like Booker DeWitt and just announce every obvious thing that can be said. Would that make you like the characters more? Would you like it if the game had some pretentious message that it obnoxiously shoved it your face for 10 hours?

I find a lot of the fanboys who say they aren't fanboys bitching about how Yahtzee didn't devote his entire existence to play the next installment of "Buy this Brand Name with extra controversy" quite humorous. Remember back when he did his Final Hallway XIII review and how people said that it got good 20 hours in? Yeah, when you're a professional video games critic, long games are the bane of your existence. And this game is no different. So they're going to go on their experiences on the amount of time they allot to it and go from there. Also Yahtzee has a side business that probably doesn't run itself.

At the end of the day GTAV didn't provide enough sustaining entertainment for him and he probably wanted to get it over and done with, especially since the insatiable masses were probably metaphorically clawing down his door wondering when he was going to review mindlessly praise something that is far from perfect. "Oh you get to play life simulator in a video game, then when you get bored with that you can prance your scumbag minions around until your pants get tight."

The bottom line is that regardless of what Yahtzee says, those who like this game are going to like it, and those who do not like it, probably won't change their minds. What I really hate is when people go around shoving this game down everyone's throat because they think it's the next coming of Jesus. And stating that it made x amount of dollars opening day doesn't make it a good game. It just means that a lot of people bought it. And if you need a comparative analogy, consider the following: Twilight and 50 Shades of Gray are best sellers. Twilight made millions in the box office, and now 50 shades is getting a movie. The material is complete tripe, but it still made lots of money, further proving that idiots have money too, and thus will waste it on things that make them think they're cool.

I can tell you firsthand that Saints Row 4 is absolute garbage and not even accidentally good. It's not even a matter of opinion. It's glitchy, boring, has absolutely no sense of pacing, most of the content is literally copy-pasted from Saints Row 3, the missions are insultingly easy, and the superpowers simply break the game.

I could say the same thing about GTAV. GTAV is nothing but a cut and paste of GTAIV... only with a bigger map which is full of empty. Saints row 3-4 are fast and furious and fun to play. I've encountered zero bugs in SR3-4 on the PS3 so I don't know what you're talking about.

MCHG:Yahtzee is really devolving into that guy who just hates on popular games just to be different and try to rile fanboysUp.

I don't understand how he can bash games like The Last of Us or GTAV but praise mediocre games like Bioshock Infinite or even Walking Dead: Survical Instinct, just because they're not as popular or mainstream.

Infinite was popular. In case you didn't notice. He praised Survival Instinct because it took the over used corpse of zombie survival horror and tried to actually add survival elements, kinda like State of Decay. Which is different from most which are less about survival and more a scorekeeper of how many walking corpses you can behead in an hour.

I don't think calling a game that shoves itself up its own butt is unconditional love.

MCHG:He loved Captain Walker in Spec Ops: The Line for making you play as the bad guy without you knowing but then TLOU does it better and more subtly and he doesn't even mention it?

He liked Spec Ops because YOU made the conscious choice to do the evil stuff while Walker tries to justify his actions with ever flimsier reasoning before he finally goes off the deep end. Spec Ops also did this thing where it gave you a choice and you didn't even realize it. Like say firing into a crowd of civilians. It said so in the objectives, but you could just as easily fired into the air to make them disperse but the game never said you could do that. THAT was the sort of thing Yahtzee liked.

Last of Us does not make you a 'bad guy'. It makes you the anti-hero and it becomes very clear very early, with the 'fuck you got mine' attitude that is practically a requirement for an anti-hero character.

Last of Us ends with our two heroes leaving it all behind and living happily ever after, or as close to it in post-apocalyptia. In Spec Ops you either kill yourself in penance for what you did, or you retreat further into your little delusion, covering what you did with poor justifications.

MCHG:Yahtzee is really devolving into that guy who just hates on popular games just to be different and try to rile fanboysUp.

I don't understand how he can bash games like The Last of Us or GTAV but praise mediocre games like Bioshock Infinite or even Walking Dead: Survical Instinct, just because they're not as popular or mainstream.

Infinite was popular. In case you didn't notice. He praised Survival Instinct because it took the over used corpse of zombie survival horror and tried to actually add survival elements, kinda like State of Decay. Which is different from most which are less about survival and more a scorekeeper of how many walking corpses you can behead in an hour.

I don't think calling a game that shoves itself up its own butt is unconditional love.

MCHG:He loved Captain Walker in Spec Ops: The Line for making you play as the bad guy without you knowing but then TLOU does it better and more subtly and he doesn't even mention it?

He liked Spec Ops because YOU made the conscious choice to do the evil stuff while Walker tries to justify his actions with ever flimsier reasoning before he finally goes off the deep end. Spec Ops also did this thing where it gave you a choice and you didn't even realize it. Like say firing into a crowd of civilians. It said so in the objectives, but you could just as easily fired into the air to make them disperse but the game never said you could do that. THAT was the sort of thing Yahtzee liked.

Last of Us does not make you a 'bad guy'. It makes you the anti-hero and it becomes very clear very early, with the 'fuck you got mine' attitude that is practically a requirement for an anti-hero character.

Last of Us ends with our two heroes leaving it all behind and living happily ever after, or as close to it in post-apocalyptia. In Spec Ops you either kill yourself in penance for what you did, or you retreat further into your little delusion, covering what you did with poor justifications.

Finally, you may want to reword your post. It reeks of favoritism.

Sounds like you didn't even play TLOU and are merely parroting what Yahtzee (incorrectly) stated in his video. How do they live happily ever after? They're both scarred for life and have been through so much. Not to mention Ellie gves Joel one last chance to tell the truth and he lies to her face because he can't live with losing another person so close to him. Doesn't sound like a happy ending to me or that they "got away with it". BTW Spec Ops was far too in-your-face and obnoxious with its "message" for me to take seriously and even you can't deny that he ignored so many problems with Infinite yet nitpicked TLOU to death. He lets his own bias overtake his opinion. He clearly dislikes Naughty Dog and console exclusives so TLOU had no chance to him. Look at his E3 video where he wrote "Yeah The Last of Us next week, whatever". He was clearly ready to hate the game before he even played it an let that color his opinion. Meanwhile he overlooks all the objective flaws in Bioshock because... Why?

The Last of Us did so many things Yahtzee wants from games. Real Survival horror, a story with substance, a stealth game that has good combat and doesn't make you kill yourself every time you get caught, no cover system, no two weapon limits, no regenerating health. He's praised other games for stuff that TLOU does much better. For example, he praised Arkham Asylum for incorporating combat into a stealth game, Resistance 3 for not having two weapon limits, regenerating health or a cover system and Rage for its graphics and animations. Yet he mentioned none of this in his video. Instead he bitched about zombies being overdone (then why did he like The Walking Dead?) and how he hates Uncharted. Not to mention he said it was a generic mix of stealth, cover shooting and set pieces. Which isn't true. It has no set pieces outside of the intro and Bioshock Infinite was FAR more safe and generic than TLOU is. But of course, Yahtzee would never admit that. After all, he just wants to piss fanboys off and troll whenever a game gets critical acclaim. Even if it means being a complete hypocrite. I look forward to his Top 5 Games list this year; where he convinces himself that Survival Instinct is better than The Last of Us.

Branindain:GTA is the perfect example of why this industry needs its Yahtzees desperately. GTA IV comes out and gets perfect scores and rampant acclaim across the board, and its Metacritic score is higher than should be possible when you consider the broad range of opinion it allegedly represents. Yet nowadays, with the hype long gone, most times I hear GTA IV mentioned, its flaws are being criticised. How is it no-one was professional enough to notice these flaws on a first playthrough? It's pathetic. And now, rather than learn anything, the cycle will begin again. Most frustrating of all, to my mind, are the reviewers who gave GTA IV a 10, and now, in giving GTA V another 10, will happily point out all the areas where it has improved weak points, or fixed problems that existed in the last version WHICH THEY GAVE A PERFECT SCORE.

This x 1000. GTA IV, when you actually took a step back and looked at it as a whole, was a very flawed game. I have still not finished it. I am not saying it is bad, because I do not believe that any one opinion is correct, but it was not perfect and certainly didn't deserve the 10's and unrelenting hype.

GTA V looks like a good game. But it also looks like everyone has little justifiable issues with it. Can we not just accept that?

silversnake4133:I find a lot of the fanboys who say they aren't fanboys bitching about how Yahtzee didn't devote his entire existence to play the next installment of "Buy this Brand Name with extra controversy" quite humorous. Remember back when he did his Final Hallway XIII review and how people said that it got good 20 hours in? Yeah, when you're a professional video games critic, long games are the bane of your existence. And this game is no different. So they're going to go on their experiences on the amount of time they allot to it and go from there. Also Yahtzee has a side business that probably doesn't run itself.

He barely discusses the actual game whilst comparing it unfavourably to glitchy DLC that was turned into a full release and his few discussions about the actual game were incredibly nit picky (flying is haaaaard) or out and out wrong. He moans about the character whilst completely misrepresenting their personality and motivation, nobody cares if he could do all the races or whatever, they care that his description of the core game was incredibly lacking.

It's cool though, he's probably got better things to do than the thing that made him famous and pays his bills. For fucks sake.

Zachary Amaranth:I mean, one of the missions in GTAV has you mopping the floor. and you have to clean out your mop head. Now, maybe you're the type of gamer who enjoys floor-mopping simulators. Maybe Environmental Services Hero is one of your big pre-orders every year. But it shouldn't really be that hard to figure out why emulating chores in video games isn't popular.

Buddy, it's your choice to do the mopping, and it's pretty damn clear when you're making the choice that it will involve mopping. It's not the game's fault that it gave you an option that you chose to take over something that may have been more exciting for you.

Buddy, it's your choice to do the mopping, and it's pretty damn clear when you're making the choice that it will involve mopping. It's not the game's fault that it gave you an option that you chose to take over something that may have been more exciting for you.

Yes, because other games that have you disguise yourself have you literally doing the menial chores.

I've been poked, badgered and belittled with the question: 'Did you get GTA V?' which I respond with a soft no (although, that was the first 10 times people asked me, now they are getting a soft growl instead) I get that people like this game, but stop annoying other people over it.

Really, not everyone shares the same taste or has the time to spend behind an X-Box/PlayStation. I haven't found games appealing the last 6 months, except for Papers, Please because that really got my blood going in a positive way. Either I'm becoming old and boring or just have 'seen it all, been there, done that'. I am leaning to the last part of my previous sentence.

Anyway, maybe I'm going to give it a whirl when it comes out on PC. Or I find a girlfriend, marry and reproduce like there is no tomorrow. Both things could happen, although me playing GTA V would be more likely.

webby:I can understand looking for balance in reviews, that isn't really what's going on here though. It feels more like people looking for smug validation that they made the right decision to not play a popular game so they focus on the negative reviews and ignore the positive ones. It's confirmation bias, plain and simple and it's pretty weird.

People aren't happy because someone gave a balanced review of the game, Yahtzee discusses very little at the end of the day, they're happy that he criticised it. It's effectively fanboyism of a different kind. Instead of saying something is good with limited/no evidence and getting mad when people say it isn't we have people saying it's bad with little/no evidence and being smug/condescending when a review agrees with them because they think it shows that they're clever and smart whilst everyone who bought the game is silly sheeple buying into the hype.

Obviously that isn't everyone but an actual discussion about the game hasn't managed to take off because because there's too much "flame shield up" type bullshit from the crowd that I mentioned.

e: Just to quickly add a bit more in here, look at the people comparing SR4 favourably to GTA5. SR4 is the weakest game I've played in the SR series, it's bland, repetitive, glitchy, self referential to an obnoxious degree, set in a location I've already thoroughly explored and the superpowers make guns pointless. People are still comparing it favourably to GTA5 though despite it blowing all the predecessors out of the water.

Maybe it is, I can't really speak for others but for myself, I feel like the GTA reviews were unbalanced. Honestly, even with my own favourite games, I feel like somebody needs to be harsh on them. To me, a game you love is not one that doesn't have flaws, it's just the flaws are ones you personally do not mind or which you actually enjoy. I absolutely loved Metal Gear Solid 2. I'm completely willing to concede that Raiden is annoying, the story is convoluted and ridiculous and much of the acting and dialogue are on par with daytime soap operas but it's still one of my favourites of the generation. I can say there are similar problems with other games I loved like Spec Ops: The Line, The Last of Us and Mass Effect 1.

I think Yahtzee did make some points about the problems he perceived in the game though. I at least got the following from it:1) There is still little attempt by Rockstar to try and fix ludonarrative dissonance because the sandboxing is inconsistent with their attempts to tell a decent story2) Childish humour is prevalent3) Characters are badly written and neither interesting nor likeable4) Heist missions are a good concept but spoiled by the lack of freedom to be creative5) Building stats feels pointless because there is no long-term gain6) Poorly placed tutorials7) Game is overall a bit disjointed 8) Story isn't very good and tends to repeat itself in new situations9) Art direction is improved over GTA 410) Physics engine and driving have improved11) Buying property actually makes sense12) Summary: game is okay but doesn't have any great new ideas that stand out as particularly good

so I think he did talk about the game enough in his comparatively short review (the mainstream ones I watched were all about twice as long). I certainly found it more informative as a review than the ones that told me how long it takes to drive from one end of the city to the other or that listed all the side activities you could do. Certainly, despite dozens of reviews with scores, I didn't hear many of the above criticisms mentioned at all, at least in the sample I read/watched.

You're right about the comments though. Every time a big franchise gets reviewed the number of people saying crap like "here comes fanboy rage" outnumber the actual fanboys about 10 to 1; people know what to expect by now with ZP, the reviews are generally inflammatory and somewhat against the grain. Those comments are also far more annoying than the passionate anger responses, at least the rage is fun to read.